Effect of Delivering Judgment on a Public Holiday/Vacation

CASE TITLE: WILLIAMS & ANOR v. ADOLD/STAMM INTL (NIG) LTD & ANOR (2022) LPELR-56593(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 7TH JANUARY, 2022

PRACTICE AREA: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION

This appeal borders on propriety of delivery of judgment during annual vacation of Court.

FACTS

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, dismissing the appeal of the appellants and affirming the ruling of the trial High Court of Lagos State, which was delivered by K.O. Alogho J., on 26th July, 2007, refusing the application of the appellants.

The Lagos State Development and Property Corporation (LSDPC) owed the 1st respondent a debt arising out of a building contract. The 1st respondent engaged the 2nd respondent as its legal practitioners to recover the said debt. The 2nd respondent as the 1st respondents’ legal practitioners commenced and prosecuted the matter. Upon recovery of the judgment debt, the judgment debt with interest, was at the request of the 2nd respondent, paid into its account at United Bank for Africa Plc (UBA) on a fixed deposit at the interest rate of 11% per annum, with a standing request to roll it over periodically.

After the death of Chief F.R.A Williams SAN, the appellants assumed full control and management of the 2nd respondent, and its said UBA account as the signatories to the account. On 3-2-2005, the appellants and the 2nd respondent paid the sum of N15,534,801.74 to the 1st respondent. Dissatisfied with the turn of events, the 1st respondent commenced an action against the appellants and 2nd respondent at the trial Court. Both sides joined issue on whether any part of the said judgment sum remained unpaid after the said payment of 3-2-2005. The 1st respondent contended that the balance of N21,534,801.75 was remaining unpaid and that the appellants and 2nd respondent converted the said unpaid balance to their personal use, without the authority of the 1st respondent, and have refused to pay same even after several demands and reminders.

The appellants and 2nd respondent contended that the 1st respondent was paid its complete entitlements in the suit as agreed during the life time of Chief F.R.A Williams SAN, and are not owing the 1st respondent any money as it claimed. They averred that Chief Ladi Williams SAN, is the alter ego and the directing mind of the 1st respondent, and that at the time the 2nd respondent prosecuted the suit and appeals for the recovery of the debt due to the 1st respondent from LSDPC, Chief Ladi Williams was working in the 2nd respondent as legal practitioner. Chief Ladi Williams SAN had entered into an agreement with the appellants and 2nd respondent, wherein he acknowledged and accepted that he had no claims whatsoever against the 2nd respondent and appellants in respect of his severance and voluntary disengagement from the 2nd respondent in respect of any matter, suit or case handled by the firm. This agreement was comprehensive in respect of all the claims of Chief Ladi Williams SAN, including the claims made in the name of the 1st respondent.

The appellants and 2nd respondent applied to the trial Court for an order of stay of the proceedings in the suit and an order referring the suit for arbitration, as contained in the agreement entered into by Chief Ladi Williams and the defendants. After hearing both sides on this application, the trial Court fixed the ruling to the 6th of July, 2007. The ruling was not delivered until 26th July, 2007, which fell within the period of the Court’s Annual Recess. In the said ruling, the trial Court dismissed the application for stay pending arbitration and refused to stay proceedings. The appeal of the appellants to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. Appellants therefore appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The issue for determination was:

“Whether the lower Court ought to set aside the ruling of the trial Court having found that the ruling was delivered during the annual vacation of the trial Court.”

DECISION/HELD

On the whole, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL – LEAVE OF COURT/LEAVE TO APPEAL: Whether leave of the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court is required to appeal on ground(s) of fact or mixed law and fact to the Supreme Court; effect of failure to seek leave
• CONTRACT – PARTIES TO CONTRACT: Whether a person who is not party to a contract can sue or be sued for the contract
• EVIDENCE – STATEMENT MADE WITHOUT PREJUDICE: Whether a statement/document made without prejudice during a negotiation can be admitted in court
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER – DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT: Effect of delivering judgment on a public holiday/vacation